Stock photo, blog post by John Hoff
On March 15, blogging from overseas, I wrote briefly about attorney Jill Clark's new blog project, named "Jill Clark Goes Wild" or something like that. My main beef with Clark's blog was it promises much, but delivers little. It was like being told "film at eleven" but then there's no film at eleven.
Specifically, Clark promised to post "documents" about her lawyer disciplinary hearing, which Clark mischaracterizes as an attempt to punish and silence a "judicial reformer."
Yeah, she's a judicial reformer...like Level Three Sex Offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer is a "professional landscaper" when he tries to make himself look socially useful by picking up litter. This is a case of the pot calling itself a remodeled kitchen.
I have to be completely honest here and admit...
...that line about "film at eleven" isn't my own creativity. I stole it from a little birdie who talked to me about Jill Clark. This isn't the same "little birdie" who used to feed me information about sex offenders, though. Believe me, the world is full of little birdies who love to twitter in the ears of bloggers.
Anyway, I posted my criticisms about Clark's blog on March 15. On March 17, St. Patrick's Day, Clark got behind the wheel of her blog and published a statement containing what certainly SEEMS to be a response, of sorts, to my pointed criticism that Clark isn't being forthcoming (like she publicly promised) about why she's facing a lawyer disciplinary hearing.
Clark wrote the following:
"Of course, in 2012, the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility publicly charged me with making ‘false’ statements about a judge. This series will be a march from 2002 toward 2012, with hopes that by the time I reach the present day, I can be telling you about what is happening now in my case (I’ll blog about why I can’t talk about the evidence yet, in upcoming blog)."
(JNS blog notes: Clark's incorrect single quote marks and awkward use of parenthesis are reproduced exactly as these appear on her blog)
Thin, Clark. Very unsatisfying.
Inquiring minds want to know...in NoMi. So let's put on our thinking caps, shall we?
First of all, it seems likely the disciplinary issue Clark is facing comes from a legal case and info about the case can be found online. I mean, it's highly unlikely Clark was walking the halls of the Hennepin County Government Center, with no particular case pending, and she just happened to run into a judge and in the course of a conversation she made some kind of statements that now have her in seriously hot water.
No, it's safe to say the disciplinary proceedings have spun from one of Clark's cases.
Of course, there's just so many cracked and crazy Clark cases that it's like digging through a dumpster to find one piece of garbage much smellier than the rest. Well, I guess I'm going to have to look at one file after another in this public forum and point out what's messed up about each case and then try to figure out whether THAT is the case.
Worse yet...it's always possible there's more than one case at issue. If I could just get to the Hennepin County courthouse to look at paper files, it would make my work easier but I'm still out of state for an indefinite period of time. Sigh.
Luckily, there's a little birdie who tells me time would be well spent examining the "Veches" case, more specifically known as Jeffrey Veches v. Officer Sean Majewski, Hennepin County Medical Center, Dr. Jay Lin, Dr. Joseph Clinton, EMS R. Kopka, EMS Koellen, John Does 1-3. This case was filed March 23, 2010. Summary judgement was granted not quite a year later, on 3-17-2011.
(Gee, that's one year to the day Clark wrote her blog post!)
Veches, who was the plaintiff, managed to end up on the losing end with a judgment against him for $1,630.70. Veches--whoever he is--got off lucky compared to judgments against some of Clark's clients, who start out as plaintiffs boldly "dishing it out" but somehow go whimpering home, their dish empty, in fact MORE than empty because now they owe a fat judgment. One need look no further than the plaintiffs in the "True JACC" Jordan Neighborhood lawsuit, though it's not the only example.
So it's not at all surprising to see one of Clark's plaintiffs end up being hit with a judgment instead of being victorious in court. It's not even surprising to see that plaintiff appealing. In fact, the Veches case is scheduled before a three judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012.
No, none of this is unusual in what some of us have begun to call the school of "Clarkian" legal thought, which might be characterized as "legal unrealism." See, "legal realism" is a legal philosophy that says your case could go one way or another depending on what the judge had for breakfast. But "legal unrealism" teaches us that a vast, hidden conspiracy is behind what the judge had for breakfast, and only the "brilliance" of Jill Clark can uncover this conspiracy.
But anyway...
There is SOMETHING unusual about the judgement in the Veches case. See, the judgement is not only against Veches. It's also against CLARK.
Tell me, how does a lawyer end up representing a plaintiff...and then judgment comes down against that plaintiff...but the judgment is also against THE LAWYER? It's kind of like, "Your client is guilty and must go to jail. And, by the way, counselor...you're going to jail, too."
Only the case is civil, so nobody is going to jail (what a pity!) it's just a matter of somebody owing MONEY. Unless the judgment can be overturned on appeal. We shall see.
So I'm hearing hints that Clark's lawyer disciplinary troubles MIGHT have come from something that happened in the Veches case. But right now I have no way to confirm that. Clark, who could simply explain all of this to her public, after trying to grab the public's interest with her meatless blog, promises in the future she will explain why she can't explain.
Whatever.
For what it's worth, I've been informed that a "Clark bar" doesn't contain nuts in the strictest sense. I mean, it does but it doesn't. It contains chocolate peanut butter. In other words, nuts reduced to such a fine consistency you can't tell at first glance the nuts are nuts.
But then you bite into it, chew on it a while...
Oh, yes. Nuts.
I am still trying to figure out who, exactly, is Jeffrey Veches and what was the nature of his lawsuit.
Readers who have info and can post links are encouraged to add to the discussion.
12 comments:
Did you see the nonsense she posted about now retired Judge Wexler? I am a attorney who practiced before him and found him to be a very fair and unbiased judge. And of course when I tried to post a comment, that option is not available on her blog.
Yeah, she has the nerve to quote Voltaire--"I'll defend to the death your right to say it"--but then she doesn't have a place where people can comment. I mean, it's not like she couldn't sort through the comments and hit PUBLISH on some and withhold others. As it now stands, even the nuts cases who might AGREE with her can't post a comment.
(Yzaguirre! Cough cough)
I think Jill started off with Wexler the retired judge because she figured it was safest to start with him. She's testing the waters with her big toe.
Well, if and when she's disbarred then she can write all she likes about sitting judges. God speed that happy day.
It's now confirmed that, as I was told in an unconfirmed way, the Veches case is mixed up in the disciplinary proceeding.
Recently, Clark posted a lot of yammering her blog about how she's supposedly being brought up on charges over not stapling a document correctly. Clark shows a photo of the document and claims the staples are in place.
"Jeffrey Veches, Plaintiff" can be seen on the document.
Here is the very revealing decision in the Veches case which just came down.
http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa111619-061812.pdf
Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions against Jill Clark. Looks like the Judge was wrong, and Clark prevailed, and that will help in her disciplinary hearing. She may also be able to get some traction in her complaint against the judge.
Although the main case wasn't reversed or sent back to the district court, that's no big loss. Only one case in twenty is reversed by the Court of Appeals, and even the biggest names such as Ron Meshbesher, Alan Caplan, and Paul Engh know this.
The fact that Jill Clark didn't win this case is no big deal.
Whether you like her or not, Clark is one hell of an attorney. That's why lawyers facing discipline hire her to represent them.
Johnny that makes interesting reading.
"Bent of mind" and shit
"Finally, apellant's argument regarding the district court's "bent of mind" against apellant's counsel is unavailing. Apellant's basis for this bent of mind claim is that the district court displayed "a tendency to hold [apellant] to the minor, minor details of litigation." Reviewing the orders indicates that the "minor details" consisted of the court rules. And apellant cites to no authority that requiring a party to conform to court rules amounts to sufficient prejudice to justify a removal for cause.
It seems you are being very selective on which comments you approve. Very disturbing.
For the record, I'm the one who is more selective on what comments get published. John publishes TOO much. And there's nothing you can do about it except just deal with it. If I want to delete a comment, because it's the same ol' same ol' about how much you hate John, how you are going to sue him (again), how he "always" loses in court, blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah... it's gonna get deleted if I'm the comment moderator at that time.
No need to have the redundancy and staleness of the same ol' thing. I can smell the regular troll stench wafting off your boring, uncreative words.
So if you want your comment published then hope John gets to it first or come up with something substantive and new to contribute to the discussion.
But not the same ol' crap about how everyone hates John ( they don't) how many laws he's breaking (he's not) how crazy he is (no more crazy than you being obsesses with him) or whatever other stupid crap you spew out of your fingers.
Back to the regular programming...
(watch! now the comments will come in about how much they hate ME!!!)
:-)
Did I miss something? Ha ha.
In regard to Clark being a hell of a lawyer, yes, if you're her client it's very likely you are going to legal hell. Look at this case and ask how well the CLIENT did. What I see here is Clark losing on every point EXCEPT the sanctions against her.
In other words, the lower court was so mad it slapped sanctions on Clark even though it was outside the rules. And the client lost on everything though somehow Clark managed to wiggle out of the sanctions.
Let's see...a medical expert affidavit was not filed within 180 days and so the claims against the hospital for medical malpractice were dismissed by the court. And, yes, the court determined one was needed.
Looks to me like Clark completely botched the case.
Really, maybe Jeffrey Veches should consider a malpractice claim against Jill Clark.
Hell of a lawyer, indeed.
Somebody added a comment about things better to blog about than Jill Clark, then added a long rant about childhood cancer. On a hunch I looked up some of the phrases used and found the same rant on a Facebook page urging Oprah Winfrey to do a show on the topic of childhood cancer.
The comment, while not spam in the purest sense, is spamlike or spamoidal and so, while I can heartily agree with its sentiments, I won't publish it and I've removed it.
your funny and really do rant alot yourself and are begging for money so you can to continue to rant about whatever and whomever you don't like. I can see why you were divorced. You want to complain about issues in Mpls. They go way back with the police department. They have always profiled groups and areas for many years. The corruption and violence against individuals is well documented. Must be why your taxes keep going up after all the settlements they have to pay out. You rant about nothing of real importance and beg for money...
Post a Comment